bridge too far Posted 30 January, 2010 Share Posted 30 January, 2010 As we are on the subject the use of two question marks seems a tad superfluous . I do believe there should be a comma between 'subject' and 'the use'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 30 January, 2010 Author Share Posted 30 January, 2010 As we are on the subject the use of two question marks seems a tad superfluous . Superfluous possibly. Grammatically incorrect?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 30 January, 2010 Share Posted 30 January, 2010 You're in danger of moving from good grammar and spelling into apostrophe nazi territory. Most of the time, posters use sufficient punctuation, although occassionally, I read a sentence, so long, I nearly asphyxiate from the lack of commas and full-stops. I don't mind typos in the slightest. Anyone can press the occasional wrong key and not noticed on a read through, but obvious bad grammar does my head in..! Here are classic examples that anyone should know, including all football pundits: Could have, should have, would have and not could of, should of, would of. It's why the contraction of said words are could've, should've, would've. Those things, not them things Better than, and not better then. Did and not done, as in... he did his work. Did well and not done good, as in... the boy did well. And when someone asks you how you are feeling, the reply is, [when it is true] I'm well, not I'm good. You can decide whether you are well, but other people will decide whether you are good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9zj9OKyczs Flick straight to 2m 50s, and carry on for as long as you like. Screenplay writers in the USA actually know the difference, even if the general population don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 30 January, 2010 Share Posted 30 January, 2010 I'm not a private school educated snob, if anything I would've rather gone to state school, but I do have problems with other people's grammar. I tend to pick up on it, even my girlfriends grammer, and it does irritate others. Many people I know get me to proof read documents and essays and other stuff because they know I'll pick up on things. Reading through Matt Le Tissier's autobiography, I noticed countless mistakes. That said, I am a texter and an emailer and even I use what I call "modern shorthand". Using capitals on a phone is a waste of time, the problem is that it does drag my usually high standards down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Most of the time, posters use sufficient punctuation, although occassionally, I read a sentence, so long, I nearly asphyxiate from the lack of commas and full-stops. Sometimes you read posts with a comma obsession that is unwarranted. Commas shouldn't be used just to indicate 'a bit of a pause'. You could have used just the one between 'punctuation' and 'although' and it would have been fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 And when someone asks you how you are feeling, the reply is, [when it is true] I'm well, not I'm good. You can decide whether you are well, but other people will decide whether you are good. Not sure I agree with this. Right now I feel good, so if someone asks.....why would I say 'well'? Unless I was recovering from being unwell, in which case your point is valid. It gets my goat when people say "not too bad", to which my response is "so just a little bit bad then"?. Why don't they say "not too well" as they should do according to you? Saying "I'm good" is more positive than saying "not too bad". Perhaps if there was more positivity in the world, it would be a better place. James Brown's famous song wouldn't sound the same if you had your way - "I feel well, da da da da da da". Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Not sure I agree with this. Right now I feel good, so if someone asks.....why would I say 'well'? Unless I was recovering from being unwell, in which case your point is valid. It gets my goat when people say "not too bad", to which my response is "so just a little bit bad then"?. Why don't they say "not too well" as they should do according to you? Saying "I'm good" is more positive than saying "not too bad". Perhaps if there was more positivity in the world, it would be a better place. James Brown's famous song wouldn't sound the same if you had your way - "I feel well, da da da da da da". Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it? Good points, JB. I suppose it is in the manner of the saying, I'm good. To me, I'm good means... I'm a good person. Well, that might not necessarily be true. I'm [feeling] well will be taken as true. James Brown, brilliant though he was, wrote: I feel good, I knew that I would...If the lyric had required him to write well instead of good, I'm sure he would have done so. What I'm suggesting is, he chose good because it was convenient and the lyric demanded it. It started a whole new way to tell people how you felt. Actually, I have few problems with, I feel good, or I'm feeling good, which is probably due to the Grandmaster of Funk. EDIT: Forgot to mention - not too bad. Very English, isn't it..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 James Brown's famous song wouldn't sound the same if you had your way - "I feel well, da da da da da da". Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it? There's a very different meaning between "I feel good." and "I feel well." and both are equally correct in context. To say "I feel well." either means "I feel healthy." if well is used as an adjective, or "I am quite good at feeling." if used as an adverb. In a similar way "I feel happy." has a different meaning to "I feel happily.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al de Man Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 In the sixth paragraph, I was taught it should be St. James' Street. Confuzzled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 It's a cardinal mistake to consider that the written language is in any sense controlled and regulated by a set of fixed 'laws' that must never be broken . The term 'law' implies that some international regulating body exists somewhere with the authority to dictate a set of official rules on users of the language and even impose punishments on transgressors . No such body exists of course and the so called 'Laws of English' are in reality little more than mere conventions , and relatively recent ones at that . The last time I checked being unconventional is not generally regarded as a crime in most walks of life . Much as I respect the work of the good people at the OED they cannot in any real sense be said to own or regulate a language as hugely dynamic and ever evolving as English , so as long as your meaning is clear and unambiguous then (especially on a medium as trivial as a Internet forum) I think we can all afford to adopt a relatively relaxed attitude to the odd misplaced comma , spelling mistake , or even (horror of horrors) a redundant question mark . Look at it this way , by all accounts a chap called William Shakespeare managed to employ our language pretty effectivly and his spelling and punctuation was quite appalling . PS , No doubt I've committed numerous grammar crimes in the above post , but please don't bother correcting me as I really don't care that much . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Look at it this way , by all accounts a chap called William Shakespeare managed to employ our language pretty effectivly and his spelling and punctuation was quite appalling . Shakespeare was pre-1750, Dr Johnson, the dictionary and the standardisation of English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Shakespeare was pre-1750, Dr Johnson, the dictionary and the standardisation of English. Yes, but didn't Baldrick throw it on the fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Shakespeare was pre-1750, Dr Johnson, the dictionary and the standardisation of English. Sausage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 EDIT: Forgot to mention - not too bad. Very English, isn't it..? It is, but it does sound crap. One that gets me is "Can I get...?" when asking for something in a shop or restaurant. It makes my blood boil. I was out for dinner last night with friends and one of the ladies said "can I get a filter coffee?". I said, "Don't worry, it's not a self service restaurant, so the waitress will bring it over for you". True story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 It is, but it does sound crap. One that gets me is "Can I get...?" when asking for something in a shop or restaurant. It makes my blood boil. I was out for dinner last night with friends and one of the ladies said "can I get a filter coffee?". I said, "Don't worry, it's not a self service restaurant, so the waitress will bring it over for you". True story. Switches on uber pedantic mode: And, of course, it should be 'shall I get .....'. 'Can' implies ability, 'shall' implies willingness. Switches mode off again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Switches on uber pedantic mode: And, of course, it should be 'shall I get .....'. 'Can' implies ability, 'shall' implies willingness. Switches mode off again No it shouldn't. It should be "Please may I have" as "Shall I get" implies that you think the waitress is crap and you would be better off getting it yourself and thus depriving the poor waitress of a well earned tip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 No it shouldn't. It should be "Please may I have" as "Shall I get" implies that you think the waitress is crap and you would be better off getting it yourself and thus depriving the poor waitress of a well earned tip. Ahh my bad - I assumed it was the waiter / waitress speaking. Soz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Switches on uber pedantic mode: And, of course, it should be 'shall I get .....'. 'Can' implies ability, 'shall' implies willingness. Switches mode off again Let's switch that uber-pedantic mode back on just for a moment. As JB was in a restaurant, and not a self-serve, the can I get could have been adjusted to can I have, where can has now changed it's context to is it possible. Uber-pedantic mode off again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Ahh my bad - I assumed it was the waiter / waitress speaking. Soz Oh sh!t TBF, you've just used the cringeworthy...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Oh sh!t TBF, you've just used the cringeworthy...! Oh OK Sl T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 In the sixth paragraph, I was taught it should be St. James' Street. Confuzzled No, "St. James's" is correct. It is the street of St. James, although there are some suggestions that when it is the possessive of a personal name that ends in 's' then the 's' after the apostrophe can be dropped. (I have used quotation marks instead of apostrophes so as to make the meaning clear). A useful guide: apostrophes are never used to indicate a plural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 Oh OK Sl T Oh bollix..! Sorry. I'm always doing that with your handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al de Man Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 No, "St. James's" is correct. It is the street of St. James, although there are some suggestions that when it is the possessive of a personal name that ends in 's' then the 's' after the apostrophe can be dropped. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbury Posted 31 January, 2010 Share Posted 31 January, 2010 This always comes up, and I have suggested that people interested in the correct use of words can be allowed to make non-antagonistic corrective posts without distracting from the poster's message. Having said that, if you've rarely looked up a word in a dictionary and copied it by hand into a written essay, what are you supposed to do? Anyway, I've ceased caring really. Interestingly, I've started working with pidgin english: adhesive/sticking plaster - plasta bathroom - rum bilong waswas boat's crew - boskru In many ways, I think it is more advanced than 'regular' english - simple, standardized, intuitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 1 February, 2010 Share Posted 1 February, 2010 Shakespeare was pre-1750, Dr Johnson, the dictionary and the standardisation of English. Yeah thanks for that Ludwig . So Shakespeare's dead then ? I didn't even know he was ill . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 1 February, 2010 Share Posted 1 February, 2010 Interestingly, I've started working with pidgin english: adhesive/sticking plaster - plasta bathroom - rum bilong waswas boat's crew - boskru In many ways, I think it is more advanced than 'regular' english - simple, standardized, intuitive. I read somewhere that this will almost certainly be the English, of the majority of its speakers, in the future. I think I'm starting to feel old, and out of step..! BTW, isn't it easier to just say bathroom..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbury Posted 1 February, 2010 Share Posted 1 February, 2010 They've only just stopped eating people, and now the guys in Papua New Guinea are at the cutting edge of linguistic development! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The use of "loose" when it should be "lose" really makes me loose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The use of "loose" when it should be "lose" really makes me loose it. I agree. People's use of lose is too loose. Having said that I'm relaxed about the change in language earlier in this thread, there are two grammar crimes that I'm struggling to accept. 1) Treating the single as a plural. I'm fighting a losing battle here and I have even capitulated recently as I've started to sound archaic. For example "The BBC are showing Only Fools and Horses again" There is only one BBC entity and it's singular so it has to be "The BBC is showing Only Fools and Horses again" 2) The abuse of none. It is not "None of them are any good" None is a contraction of Not one. i.e. it is singular. Therefore it is "None of them is any good" But following these rules nowadays make you sound like some sort of Victorian school master. And rule number 1) above used to be enforced by the BBC religiously but now they've left it up to the presenters to decide. I don't know about Radio 4 but the TV and Radio 5 talk about how Manchester Utd. are signing x and how BP are increasing their revenue. My family are fed up with me shouting "IS" at the radio and TV. So instead I've decided to bother you lot instead. Heigh ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 3 February, 2010 Author Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The use of "loose" when it should be "lose" really makes me loose it. Yes. This is another one. I am also sad with the amount of Americanisms that creep in. "Can I get?", "I'm good",and "Listen up" for example. I also find it funny and annoying in equal measures to hear young white kids talking with black ghetto/hip-hop accents. I don`t know about the Americans winning "The War on Terror" but they are doing really well in "The War Against the English Language!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 I agree. People's use of lose is too loose. Having said that I'm relaxed about the change in language earlier in this thread, there are two grammar crimes that I'm struggling to accept. 1) Treating the single as a plural. I'm fighting a losing battle here and I have even capitulated recently as I've started to sound archaic. For example "The BBC are showing Only Fools and Horses again" There is only one BBC entity and it's singular so it has to be "The BBC is showing Only Fools and Horses again" 2) The abuse of none. It is not "None of them are any good" None is a contraction of Not one. i.e. it is singular. Therefore it is "None of them is any good" But following these rules nowadays make you sound like some sort of Victorian school master. And rule number 1) above used to be enforced by the BBC religiously but now they've left it up to the presenters to decide. I don't know about Radio 4 but the TV and Radio 5 talk about how Manchester Utd. are signing x and how BP are increasing their revenue. My family are fed up with me shouting "IS" at the radio and TV. So instead I've decided to bother you lot instead. Heigh ho. This is very common and I saw a piece about in some time ago. There are occasions where the use of either is apparently accepted, particularly with regard to football clubs, e.g. 'Manchester United is the biggest club in the world' 'Manchester United are through to the next round of the cup' The Government is also often referred to in the plural and singular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Bring back Latin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now